DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleTurn Left has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
[edit]

It's bad style to conceal the names of articles in links to events, so I suggest that instead of the form "[[article name|phrase describing event in alternative timeline]]" we stick to "phrase describing event in alternative timeline ([[article name]])". As well as clearly showing what we're referring to before the link is clicked, this style translates well into hard copy. Wiki is a technology we're using to construct an encyclopedia, it isn't necessarily the only form in which the encyclopedia will be used. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly agree, however, the form of "(as referenced in [link])" is also rather clunky. — Edokter • Talk • 13:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The parenthetical link, "([[article name]])" , is sufficient. With an appropriate preamble (the current version reads "The narrative turns to the alternative history created by Donna's choice, far bleaker than the established course of events") the meaning of the links in parentheses will be clear to the reader. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine as is. All the episodes are listed in the continuity section. Either as it is or no links at all, I say. U-Mos (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "in previous episodes" to Anticipation's phrasing, if only to help make it clear what the parenthetical bits are (and to keep the plot out of universe ) --MASEM 15:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Monry Python Wonderful Gravity Grannies Babies Hownottobeseen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A542:2B85:0:A599:AE33:8C:35A8 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my LORD

[edit]

Well, this morning I got an edit war warning for changing it to three-parter and then having it reverted and then... I did some background reading, and this debate has been had before, as far as I can see, and there is no rliable source for either, although several tertiary sources contradict one another. I'm not sure whether it counts for anything, but that week's TV Times (21st - 27th) said that it is a three-parter, as does my episode guide. therea re arguments for it being stand-alone, but the episode's ending doesn't fit in on its own, and the continuty bit was BEFORE teh controversial "Next Time" trailer. RTD had said it can be either, and I personally think that the evidence points towards three-parts. Can we get a resoloution on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistoop (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you finaly did some background digging. Simply forcing your opinion by edit warring was not a smart move. Now you have pointed out there are arguments for both, but we ultimately have to go with reliable sources. Since neither stance can come up with a definitive source, we should treat it as a stand-alone episode by default. Also, the fact that only the end ties into the next episode, and the rest has no continuity with the next episods at all, we cannot substantiate that it is a three-parter. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Turn Left (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 September 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved Turn Left (Doctor Who) → Turn Left and Turn Left → Turn Left (disambiguation). The episode, however niche, is determined to be the primary topic since all other uses are much more obscure. No such user (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– The newspaper changed its name, leaving this as the only subject called "Turn Left". Unreal7 (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A topic does not become less notable or disappear even if it is no longer referred to in the present tense. No evidence presented to show that the television episode is a primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Update Withdrawn vote, per pageviews numbers cited below. 162 etc. (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We generally try to avoid having contemporary media be the dominate name in disambiguation areas. --Masem (t) 14:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
? Unreal7 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not leaving a support or oppose [yet], but if the contemporary media is the primary topic then why should it not hold the "dominate name"? TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because by its very nature of being contemporary, it likely will wane in time compared to other topics. Eg: at the height of when Avatar the film was all over the place, we did not move the film over primary topic of avatar the philosophical context despite the imbalance of page views. Its generally why we don't use page views to judge what is the primary topic. --Masem (t) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Masem, User:TheDoctorWho, that's just not at all correct. Usage is one of the two major ways to determine WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and traffic statistics is the number one way to determine usage. And we have thousands of articles about contemporary media where the title is the primarytopic. If it has more usage, and more significance than competing topics, it's primary. WP does not have a bias against popular culture. Dohn joe (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason. You've got quite the knack of putting words in people's mouths. Unreal7 (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually believe primary topics can exist on Wikipedia? You always favor disambiguation, even when it is not necessary. -- Calidum 20:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.